Royal Family expresses concerns over alarming measures used by paparazzi seeking photos of Prince George

Official photo from Princess Charlotte's christening. Photo by Mario Testino

By way of a letter from Kensington Palace, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have expressed concerns with some of the recent tactics used by paparazzi trying to photograph their two-year-old son. The letter details some of the methods photographers have used to try and get their shots, including hiding in sand dunes and using other children to lure Prince George into view at playgrounds.

The list goes on: other methods detailed include surveillance of nannies and household staff, pursuing cars leaving family homes, and use of telephoto lenses to photograph the Duchess playing with her son at a private park.

The letter, written by Communications Secretary Jason Knauf, points out that most reputable media outlets in the US and the Commonwealth have a policy of not publishing unauthorized photos of the family. But publications that will pay for unauthorized photos of the young Prince remain. By issuing this statement, the family hopes to inform the public of the tactics used to produce un-authorized photos and put pressure on the publications to stop paying for them.

Comments

Everybody is the same person as everyone else.Taking pictures of minors is wrong and so is expecting to be treated like a queen or price is also wrong...Get of ur bum and start working for living you silly people

Spending Tons of Tax payers Money? Where? The Royal Family does actually pay Taxes and have done for almost 20 years, and what they cost and what they generate for the British economy is undisputed. The Duchy's of Cornwall and Lancaster provide a large chunk of the actual cost of the Monarchy is perceived to cost.

One learns new things every day. Having assorted sultans, despots, emperors, kings, and queens carried on your backside is actually GOOD for you in a pecuniary respect. How amazing? Most folks would just classify these sorts as bloodsuckers.

Blood suckers? Whose blood have they sucked recently? To whom exactly have the Royal Family done harm? Name me some names.

Of course, you can't. The fact of the matter is that people like myself (i.e. the majority of the British Public) love and respect our Royal Family.

The reason we love them is, in my opinion, threefold; Firstly, they support and care for the people of the country in ways that politicians cannot and will not (both charitably and in real terms, through their actual service to the nation).

Secondly, they are a bulwark against alternative arrangements, which would be merely another republic with yet another layer of elected politicians. Of course! That'll really stamp out corruption and short-term interest - another bunch of people who only care about the nation once in every 5 years! Remind me, how exactly does one bribe a Monarch?

Finally, they are a FAMILY. So, being a family, the families of the country relate to them and empathise with them.

Those people all have such unnatural happy faces so it is very hard to se if it is a mask or not. But, that is usually just something they have practiced. Any of the unnatural faces that looks in particular fishy?

Sorry All, and don't get me wrong - I love the fact we have a "Royal Family" and our amazing "Queen".

But hey, why get all prissy of a few dozen (or more) low-life hack paparazzi want to take pics of your grand kids? Some or your "subjects", who pay for your existence, want to see what they are paying for.

So let them.

Personally, I couldn't give a toss either way. Small kids are small kids, end of.

I was totally SICK of all Diana's bleatings, while she actively wooed the Press with her poses, pouts, and sidelong glances. She was ONLY who she was because of her carefully managed press coverage. Her death was sad and premature, but ultimately of her own making.

Back to now - if you want to live the privileged life of a British Royal, on money contributed by everyone living in your realm, then PUT UP with photos for those of your contributors who can be assed to want some value for their money.

B) These photographs are being sold by, often foreign photographers, to always foreign press agencies. British media do not print unauthorised images of children. It is not contributors of the realm that are making money out of this.

C) If you think the royals are privileged then you have either a weird defintion of privilege, or you lead a very sad life. You could not pay me enough money to lead their closeted, boring, caged, life.

"These photographs are being sold by... foreign photographers, to always foreign press agencies."

Wow, you see, Badscientiific -- this is what will happen to a country in which there are apparently no photographers nor press agencies no more. Us foreigners have to take up the void, see? You Brits should thank us, really.

The issue here is "Family", Royal or otherwise. Francis, may I ask if you have children? I do, as it happens.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I would like to take photographs of YOUR children (if you don't have any, then try to imagine that you do).

These photographs would actually be of them whilst they are in private settings but they would all be taken from a public right of way (say, into your bedroom or bathroom, whilst hiding in a tree or in a car) and then I would sell those pictures to people overseas for money.

What's wrong with that? Apart from the fact that you have not the first idea what the people who receive those images will do with them. The kind of people who are maybe, TOR-using people, perhaps? I think I could be expecting a call from the police in very short order if that was my game.

Are you sticking up for that? If so, then perhaps you may want to think about where your moral compass is pointing.

No not really living in an area where there are many high profile people you see paparazzi often. They tend to be rude, arrogant and dangerous when their chasing a story or photo opportunity. Bit like how Police pursuit drivers or military pilots get a fixed on what's around them and cause near or actual accidents. But the real scum seems to be the French or Italian ones who cause the most damage to the professions reputation. They have no boundaries and no respect for the law of the land.

I'm glad the word 'scum' was used as it highlights my original point. In fact, the only time I ever hear the word 'scum' used is when it's used by "people without independent thought and pre programmed to hate the paparazzi."

Who are the people, the end users who are buying these photographs and the magazines by millions? Don't they understand that most people don't appreciate to be photographed against their consent? How come nobody is calling them names? They are the ones who are strangely punishing their idols by financing the paparazzi. Maybe people get a kick out of inflicting pain on the rich and the famous.

That is where the money is, deeply seated inside the psyche of a very large number of people. It is called voyeurism and projection. It is a form of collective aberrant behaviour that needs legislation to change, not spitting at the photographer.

You can feed your family without breaking the law or invading others privacy. Next time I see one should I stick my lens in their face and see how they like it.? Or may just follow them home and take pictures of the family. Its not just the action of taking a single image, it's the manner in which they go to any lengths to do so.

Your typical anti-paparazzi drivel. So, let me see if I gt this -- if you take your camera and take pictures with it, it is all right, but if someone else is doing the same, it is something inherently bad?

Francis:If you are hiding in bushes, using small children and babies as bait to lure another small child into frame. If you are putting yourself and those around you in danger of being shot by armed bodyguards. If you are hiding in the boot of a car for several hours with a 500mm lens to get a photo of a baby then there is not only something inherently bad about what you are doing, there is something dangerously WEIRD about it too.

There are plenty ways to earn a very good living in the UK. If you are good at something, there are few places on earth that will reward you as well as you will be rewarded here. If you need to go to the lengths described above to make money, well, god help you.

And your obsession with the British Royal family IS downright WEIRD. You are not even British, you do not pay taxes in Britain. You do not need to read about the Royal family, look at pictures of them or even think about them? What's with the obsession? You care more than most Britons!

Unfortunately DPR had posted this nonsense here for all of us to see. Yeah, I am not a Briton, never wanted to be, never will be, and in fact don't even like to go there if I can help it. Unfortunately, time and again I am forced to look at the deformed faces and postures of these zombie-like Brisih "royals" no matter where I happen to be.

I really do not give a flying hoot about them, they can all rot in hell for all I care. Matter of fact, by looking at their latest sordid photo -- they probably already do.

Now, the piece here I am commenting on is about the so-called British and/or United Kingdom "royals" bitching and moaning incessantly about the totally normal fact that some professional British subject photographers equipped with cameras and telephoto lenses do take photos of them.

Now, maybe it is illegal to photograph children under the age of 21 over there, I don't really know, but I do know that in other countries, photographing children is not a criminal offense.

Maybe these GB/UK/whatever "royals" should joint the rest of Humankind - or just get off the Planet Earth, better yet.

BadScience -- and just what are YOU commenting on? It seems to me you are commenting on MY comments. How sad and unoriginal, really.

For somebody who doesn't give a 'hoot' about a family that lives 3000 miles away; a family that has *zero* effect on your life; you spend an inordinate amount of time being 'forced' to look at pictures of them.

Why are you telling me things you DON'T know? If you don't know the age of majority in the UK, don't tell me you don't know. I don't care what you don't know. If you want to know look it up. Your ignorance serves no purpose.

Neither do your views on the head of state of a foreign country.

Your mania on the royals, their ancenstry and their political views is beyond weird, it really is.

....(British and/or United Kingdom? - you know one term is a noun and the other is an adjective, yes?)

Yo', Baddie, for some like you who had said nothing even quarter-way intelligent about the DPR post "Royal Family expresses concerns over alarming measures used by paparazzi seeking photos of Prince George," you sure spend w whole lotta time on somebody who doesn't give a hoot about a family that lives 3000 miles away with zero effect on anybody's life.

True, I don't know what the "age of the majority" is in the English Commonwealth of Wales and Scotland, or whatever the heck the official name is of that place, but lucky for me, I don't even give a hoot.

"Head of state?" More like a leech that cannot be gotten rid off easily.

Now, you may fancy the idea that Americans and others not part of the Scottish-Welsh-Englandisch United Britain, Commonwealth of Great Kingdom spend all their waking hours gripped by looking at photos of little "royal" kiddies soiling their pants and climbing into sand boxes, but rest assure, that is not the case. These pix are taken for domestic consumption.

You pretend not to give a hoot, but you love it. LOVE IT. Your made up names for a country (or anothers avatar) are no more intelligent than kindergarten nicknames. Pathetic.

Why DO you spend so much time and effort thinking about the Royal family?

Where did this mania come from? YOU are FREE to ignore them

Pap-pics of William's children are NOT for domestic consumption. The British press do NOT print unofficial photos of children. These photos are taken by foreigners and sold to foreingers–such as yourself–who pretend they are forced to look at them, but instead relish them with a weird curiosity (you really need help if you feel "forced" to look at pictures of children).

I have NEVER scoured the net for photos of the (great) grandchildren of foreign heads of state. I think the number of British people that do is approaching nil. That YOU do (and LOVE IT) says more about your weird mania than your fake protestations do.

Well, Baddie Badwolf, do you suppose most of them Northernirelandstons, Scottons, Welshtons, Englanders, and Britons can even figure out what the heck is the "official name" (if any), of the country? And all YOU seem to know about it is one is a noun, and the other is an adverb. Which is probably not even correct.

Baddies, if you do not mind me asking: why do YOU spend so much time and effort thinking about other people concerning the Royal family? You have no original thought on the matter at all? Just where did this mania of yours come from? YOU are FREE to ignore them, you know.

The British press does not print photos of children? Oh well, good for them. Now, what happens when the child turns 21 or 31 -- is the British United Kingdom GB press permitted to print photos of them then -- or not even then?

In typical "Lost the Once Formidable Empire All the Way" fashion, you are blaming the foreigners that folks in your country are so daft, they did not chop of the heads of these totally useless kings and queens and assorted leeches -- like the French people had the brain to do so way back in the 18th century? Tsk, tsk.... If the Brits could only learn from the French, and no one else, their country would be so much better in most respects already, you know?

Why do I spend so much time? Its a great British passtime to take the p!55 out of idiot foreigners; especially a certain type of American that knows nothing outside their front yard (and needs a flag planted on the lawn to remember what country they live in).

I'm no royalist - I'm just amazed that idtiot foreigners such as yourself are so intrigued by them. (The English DID behead their King. And instigated a commonwealth republic).

Why are you so obsessed with photos of young children? I mean, it really does come across as very weird, a bit deranged, and possibly dangerous.

"The British press does not print photos of children"They don't print Pap-photos. Photos of the Queen's great-grandchildren are given to the press for free.

Regarding questions about the age of majority, or the British press' agreement with the royal family; why don't you find out, rather than making it up as you go along (and looking foolish)

seriously, your obsession (complusion) with being 'forced' to look at photos other people's children is a worry. You need to get some help.

Its exactly this that is going to cause somebody to get shot. Weirdos lurking in the shadows or in the back of vans with long barrels under their jackets. Using children as bait to attract other children. You should be careful.

....

....

"Baddie Badwolf, do you suppose most of them Northernirelandstons, Scottons, Welshtons, Englanders,"Does writing like a 5-year old increase the chance that you are to be taken seriously? Do you use baby-coo-coo language in your everyday life? Or do you save it for your online persona? Is this a creepy manifestation of your obsession?

@ Badarse: so you think that ALL foreigners are idiots, okay. Man, oh man, if you could only hear what the foreigners think of the poor hapless folks living in that little down-on-its-luck, down-from-its-former glory country, OMG.... Your ears might fall of from all the instant venom, see?

A country that needs a bunch of living corpses to parade them for the photographs -- just to eek out a living from foreign tourists is a country whose citizens should not dare to criticize anyone else.

Re. the "the British press' agreement with the royal family..." Wow, really? In your last weird posting, you claimed that only photographers would shoot this wild bunch, not the local camera folks. So, what do British photographers take pictures of, then? U.S. President Obama's rear end?

Regarding "royally pompous baby-pictures" -- well, I never saw any of those anywhere, here on DPR or elsewhere, so if anyone is a total sicko about baby pictures, than it is you, Sir Almighty Badnewsbear.

Its quite obvious this is about photographs being taken - often using subterfuge - by freelance photographers to be sold to, and published by foreign media in press or online....not "local camera folks"...could you not understand this not so subtle difference?

...

Do you know how much of the UK's gdp is generated from royal photographs (so the UK can eek out a living?) No, of course you don't. You are making all this up as you go along. Which is fine. What's not so fine is your weird obsession, which you just cannot let go of.

Your weird obession with Britain, and your weird obession about photographing other people's young children in private ("they FORCED me to look at them...")

And what's with the 5-year-infant-school baby-names? You are dangerously weird.

How do you know, Dear Badnothing, who besides you is an idiot, and who besides you is not an idiot, hmmm? You've got some sort of a built-in "idiot meter" going on there in that skull of yours, or what?

Some country you have got over there, BTW, My Dear Badeyedbear, that only foreign photographers are allowed to take pictures of certain domestic people. Some democracy, Hail Mary! Or is it that the British freelancers do not see the gold pot in shooting them ever-complaining "royals," whereas the clever foreigners do?

It's nothing to do with "allowed": the British Press agreed not to send Paps after William and Harry after their mother died, and the agreement stands for William's children. Its not a law, its a "gentleman's agreement" regarding good manners. Heard of them?

you are making this up, one minute, the British economy stands or falls on photos of children, the next its a bad idea that it doesn't.

halfwit.

(are you still being "forced" to look at photos of young children? or have you got help?)

Wow, in your country even the infants go to school? Wow... how veddy scary. What a dismal infanthood that must be, my, my.

"its a "gentleman's agreement" regarding good manners."

MY RELATED QUESTION: Are you talking about that neither in North-America, nor in Continental Europe country here that has its capital a sprawling, weird commercial architecture joint called London? Surely, you cannot.

"are you still being "forced" to look at photos of young children?

ANSWER TO THAT ONE: Never seen any of these so-called "children s pictures." To me, one child looks just like another child. (Of course, I am not a British subject in the endured employ of a Queen or King or whatever). But leave it to the British, and soon they will outlaw breathing as well. After photographing "children" under the age of 25 or so will be outlawed, that is. :-)

yes, shoot a paparazzi! use the worst quality camera you can get, and then send the photo to the press. their shame will be unbearable and the individual in question will never shoot anything other than landscapes ever again.

they should just allow photographers with medium format cameras to approach the royal family. that'll weed out the peasants. exceptions will be made for people with Leicas, but only "pure blood", not those "Panaleica" impersonations.

Just because you are a celebrity or royalty does not mean it is a public invitation to have your privacy violated and your entire life publicly ogled at without consent. Like you and me, they should have a right to choose what they want to share with the public and what they do not want to share. Share a wedding, sure, they consented to it. Share an afternoon with family at a private park, no. Put the same scenarios on a pauper and you should expect the same.

I expect the same rights to privacy that fall on me should be respected as much to apply to them.

There are times when I want my private life to be private and times when I want to share my life with the public. There are also understandings of what to expect when soliciting in a public venue. There are also laws about consent forms when being singled out for profit, etc. All of those boundaries should be honored and respected.

If a celebrity is out in public with friend/wife/girlfriend then as long as they're in "public" they should be fair game. Walking down the street, at an airport, driving a car. All fair game. The same goes for politicians, and the Royal Family. Would anyone on here want to have photographers trying to get pictures of their wife or children? Every day? I think not. There has to be boundaries for the Royal Family just like there should be for everyone else.

All the government's surveillance legislation gets rubber stamped by the queen (given Royal Assent), so I find it a bit rich when the royals whine about privacy, when they don't seem to have a problem with the government surveillance of the rest of us mere subjects 24/7!

As for the photos and how they are gathered, if the photographers are breaking laws then prosecute. If not, then suck it up. It's the celebrity status given to such people in the first place, and their own self importance which generates the paparazzi interest.

Exactly. The United Kingdom is so extremely Nazified with Orwellian surveillance up the kazoo, It is disturbingly provocative for these allegedly "privileged ones" to complain about their privacy being violated -- when the Queen is authorizing the government to do that and a whole lot more against every Dick, Jane, and Harry in the country.

"Obsession with Britain?" No, not really. Just a definite dislike of it, is all.

However, the fact remains that the "British" royal cluster (known as "The Windsors") are really just some expatriate Germans, who were extremely pro-Nazi all through the ages, and even quite recently some of these so-called "British royals" were photographed in full Nazi Gestapo uniform giving the Heil Hitler salute.

Good think that we have got some freelance photojournalists working in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, as we can have pictorial proof of this ongoing outrage. Due to British censorship, they probably would not even dare to publish this types of photos.

Expatriate? That's someone who "lives outside their native country" Queen Victoria was born in Britain almost 200 years ago and so were all her descendants. Exactly who were the "British royals" who were "photographed in full Nazi Gestapo uniform giving the Heil Hitler salute"? Do you mean The Queen and her sister with other members of the family? They were children and, as you weren't there, you have no idea if that was a joke for the camera. Somewhere there may well be a photograph of some friends and me giving the Nazi salute behind a boss's back.....as a joke. There were those who sympathised with both Nazism and the demands of Germany before the war; there's no reason to believe this family would be different from any other. If you mean Harry, it wasn't a Nazi symbol.The word Swastika derives from Sanscrit and was used by Hindus and Buddhists as well as the Finnish Air Force from 1918 and one still features on a BAe factory near Chester. Don't pay too much heed to photojournalists

That somebody is interested (or rather that a quite few are interested) is very relevant. That is the basis for the papers writing the drivel and the paparazzi chasing people. That some are not interested, is totally irrelevant though.

I thought I would write on the topic of the so called "royals." A few points that recently came to light in news articles. Previously, the queen was considered just a figure head. It is now know that not the smallest law is passed without her knowledge and authority. Two; 40% of global debt belongs to global royals. We also know that they are pedophiles, zionists, Satanists. Their dirty washing is displayed in global newspapers and what goes on is nothing short of a horror show. Yet here I come for find that people defending these inbred scum. I will also mention the charge concerning Nazism. We know that they supported Hitler even as the bombs fell. That information is available for those with the guts to do some research.

They are royal. So, for some strange reason, some wants to read about them and see pictures. Some are living on that need. The usual stuff. If they do not want attention, then they can just renounce their royal status. Yes, it is quite distasteful to chase a young kid, but the kid do not live a normal life in the first place.

When we are children whatever our life is is what we consider normal. Prince George is not old enough to know that his life is not what we would consider normal.

I think once they are adults the Royal family are, within restraints of the law and decency, fair game but as children they shoud be left alone.

Why people get so worked up about the Royal family is something I will never understand. I am not an anti royalist or anything but when I read that a cardigan Prince George has been seen wearing is sold out the next day I just find it pathetic.

Life is strange. When you are an ordinary person you may think living a privilege life is fun or enjoyable but when you are born into it you may think otherwise. You will find that you are actually trap in your world, lacking the freedom to do what you want. This is not only true for royalties but also if you are just rich and famous. There is always danger lurking around the corner. They also become the subject of gossips. So, I don't think it is fun to live such a life.

Most people are status conscious and they need a higher level to aspire to. Following the Joneses satisfy their need to appear they have achieve some success. The same reason apply why people like to drive expensive cars when a simple car serve the purpose. Thus, it is not surprising that people like to imitate the choice of royalties and famous. However, if they are confident of themselves they do not need to do that. Unfortunately, not many people have achieve that level.

And when you're an ordinary person, with little money, resources and opportunity you may find that you are actually trapped in your world, lacking the freedom to do what you want.

We're all to some extent trapped and confined by our situation, those born into extreme privilege and wealth have the means to make their situation a lot more luxurious, anyone who tells you otherwise is talking nonsense. (the debate about happiness is a whole other kettle of fish).

i don't know what it is supposed to mean. Francis is obsessed with the British for some weird reason. Maybe his American wife screwed a better looking, richer, better hung British guy? You wouldn't blame her.

This family of dysfunctional sociopaths, originally Nazis from Germany, changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and are no more "royal" than any of us. The public and paparazzi should stop giving them any attention.

Valiant, I am English and you are entitled to you opinions but the Royal Family are not Nazis and your comment is one of libel, ignorance and an idiot not a Scientist, by all accounts superb at your job!

"the royal family did have lots of fun doing the nazi salute in the 30s-40s."

Yeah, and so did one of those "young princes" in the early 2000s. The distasteful chap had even dressed up in a Nazi Gestapo officer's uniform! And we have the pictures to prove it, thanks to the wonderful invention of cameras.

The "Royals" in GB were hard-core Nazis -- all the way to the day the Krauts had started bombing and rocketing them. Then they quickly changed their tune. And still, at this moment, the United Kingdom is probably the most Nazefied country out there. Although they do bark a lot lately against Russia.

To be fair I rate the us as nr1 in that category Francis, land of the free? Not judging by a few of my american friends info, way more regulations than any european nation. For example building permits for a wooden shack = wtf?

The British have got a sense of humour that you seem to lack. There is nothing wrong with lampooning nazis. If you think dressing up as a fancy dress nazi is distasteful, then you live a very boring life!

"Valiant, I am English and you are entitled to you opinions but the Royal Family are not Nazis and your comment is one of libel, ignorance and an idiot not a Scientist, by all accounts superb at your job!"

Comments like this show the lack of clarity and mental confusion of some posters. I did not say that the Royal Family were Nazis, it was the original Saxe-Coburg-Lineage as historically documented genealogically.

The Majority of Royal Families in Europe are related, the Dutch, Danish,Swedish,Norwegian, Belgian and before the Russian revolution the Tsars and The German Kaisers. The Nazis were a Political Organisation. The British Royal Family is not Permitted to publicise their veiws, although Prince Charles does express support or condemns things that he believes is against the People and the Nations best interests.

Francis grow up and grow some manners. Let's not talk about Facism and the US shall we ? Modern or historical. Selling weapons to whoever they thought would win did a lot more damage than a historical rump of aristocrats reminiscing over a lost European fraternity.

@BadScience "But, what exactly has this got to do with anything with people living now?"

Everything. The current Royal Family presents themselves as the House of Windsor (a pure English Family) when in fact they are not, which is why they changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gothe. Most people like to know when they are being deceived.

The "pure English" - if you can find any - are Anglo-Saxons, a GERMANIC tribe;

I've never heard of any Royal presenting themselves as "pure English". Their name was changed on the DEMAND of the Prime Minister 100 years ago, long before the rise of Hitler, due to anti-German feeling during WW1. Many families with German names did the same (Schmidt to Smith, or Messerschmitt to Messer for example).

During WW2 the Queen served in the British Army and her husband served in the Royal Navy. Her son fought in the Falklands. Her grandson fought in Afghanistan.

I'm not a royalist - Im a Republican - but I do not doubt the Queen's utter commitment devotion and service to this country.

If the elected head of state of the USA was as devoted to your country we'd have fewer problems.

Yeah, and their name has HAS NOTHING (not everything) NOTHING to do with the views of the royals now.

No ones being decieved about the Royal Family name, Its taught in most Schools and so is the First World War and why the name was changed. If you think other wise your probably one of those nutter who believe in every conspiracy going from Roswell to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

@ BadScience: "If you think dressing up as a fancy dress nazi is distasteful, then you live a very boring life!"

Okay, since you think so, you probably also dress up in a fancy Nazi dress every weekend, right? Or is it only every other weekend?

"so if my great grandfather was a german nazi that relects on me how exactly?"

Good question. Probably only so, that quite probably you are a Nazi as well. Th apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree, in most cases.

I languish hope, however, that this was merely a hypothetical question on BadScience's part, and therefore that his granddad was not a Nazi.

And like Valant says, the current "Royal Family" presents themselves as the "House of Windsor" (a family with an English sounding name, when in fact they are anything but. They changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gothe to Windsor.

"the Queen served in the British Army.... Her grandson fought in Afghanistan."

First of all, the present Queen was a child during WWII, so she did not server anything then, except maybe her nannies and tutors.

But hey, maybe you are talking about the present queen's mother? Well, in that case, HER grandson did not :serve" in Afghanistan. Maybe her great-grandson did.

And just what do you mean by "serving in Afghanistan" anyhow, Dear BadScience? You mean that this young fellow went there to fight the partisans and freedom fighters of the country? Is that something to be proud of these days in your country, I wonder?

Talking about photography: This image lacks class. The family is too orderly, predictable in a bourgeois setting, aligned in an unimaginative way, obviously following instructions [now face the camera! smile!]. The good queen looks diminished. Not a hint of excitement or artistry. Testino has made many memorable images. Not this one. Paging Horst, Beaton!

You're right! This is one weird line-up. The Queen Herself almost seems like an afterthought. Her handbag sitting on the floor, in plain sight -- priceless! And her hubbie has to stand to the side behind her. I guess they could only round-up one single settee at Buck Palace or whatever.

The photographer, Mario Testino, was probably chosen because he often produces somewhat bland images, which is what was required here. The picture was taken for use by magazine and newspapers such as Hello! and The Sun, not for portraiture aficionados.However, the cutting off of feet and shoulders should not have happened.Her Majesty always carries a handbag; on the two occasions when I met her, she had a handbag, even though it was not really necessary.

Rather strangely I imagine if middle-aged men went to that much trouble to photograph a more random two year old child they would get in more trouble.

Also people talk of supply and demand, the public would like all sort of stuff, as the recent leaks of nude celebrity photographs showed. Does that mean you'd be fine with photographers hiding cameras in celeb's bathrooms?

I think it's not unreasonable to want a two year old to have a normal life, it's not like they don't show him to the press and public on reasonably frequent occasions.

Finally the Prime Minister runs the country, an elected head of state wouldn't have any power so what's the point, jobs for the politicians cronies probably.

Francis, sounds like you have an mixture of an identity crisis, inferiority complex and are out of touch with reality if you think what you wrote is remotely based in reality. There is still a percentage of US citizens - like yourself - that cannot let go of nanny's (the UK's) coat-tails.

These photos are not being sold in the UK.

DO you have ANY idea what percentage of the UK's gdp is related to the UK having a monarchy?

The Nation that fought a war of independence against the Greatest Empire the World has ever seen is so hooked on the British Royal Family. Why? regretting the mistake of your past ? And whats with the God obsession? Americans seem to think that he's only on your side. What a joke. It's little wonder the majority of the World dislike you.

The degenerates of Buckingham Palace and their inbred off-springs -- do you really think they are of interests to folks in Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, Montana, and so on? The Americans had fought two bloody wars against this creepy Euro-lot, and beat the heck out of the Kings and assorted leeches of England on both occassions.

Next thing you guys tell me, it is American paparazzi doing the telephoto photography of these toddlers? If so, did the British royal family file a court action, like an injunction or cease-and-desist order against them in a United States federal court? Because if not, why are they now crying and moaning about, yet again?

Just a bunch of leeches and free masons no time for any of them since Diana was murdered yes she was murdered Charles has a lot to answer for here in Scotland we have no time for them,But that great day of judgement is coming.The grave is a great leveller

1 A softly spoken lady head of a state that has been seeing tens of leaders of nations from around the world for the past tens of years and never ending a dialogue with harsh words or animosities,

2 With a uniquely large body of cultural and political experience that is second to none globally,

3 Is unquestionably loyal to the country and its citizens,

4 Cannot be bought by any money

5 Has been reading and writing and working relentlessly since her first foreign visit in 1953,

6 Is still engaged with tens of humanitarian and environmental activities around the globe, and a whole lot more,

And then tell me that man's fees.

Accumulation of wealth or spending are not in her top 100 priorities, and the gold goblets she drinks in, belong to British people. We pay to keep an institution alive, because it is our heritage and our history. The Queen is a trusted partner who is doing all the hard work.

Over the centuries, England and Britain had waged wars on four continents against just about every other creed and race and religion of people. They waged over a dozen wars against France and America, for starters. If anything the Queen stands for today, is the for the non-endearing term "Bloody English."

The US has done a good job catching up and surpassing the war-mogering and empire building of the old world in a mere fifty years. The difference is, the US is good at starting wars, not so good at winning them (having very rarely successfully waged war without the substational help of others, be they the French in the war of independece, or the Soviets in WW2). Might it be a good time for Americans to realise that war is rarely a good thing, and never a good thing if you are rubbish at it?

The kingies and queenies of old were fighting the natives in Europe, America, Africa, and Asia.

Not sure about the English-Australians wars -- how many of those were there, please?

So, that would make it FOUR continents. Not five or seven, see? Not even nine continents -- honestly, I tell 'ya!

@ Tom arto: "England is a country in Britain - along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

Oh my God.... where do people this totally clueless about the modern world reside in our world, I wonder? Please, please say that not in my country, okay?

"Great Britain: is actually more like "Little Britain" -- a rather small country, but are you seriously saying there are even multiples of even smaller countries inside that small country, or what the heck, huh?

I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I know, the British Parliament has had nothing to say about the law of gravity, unless this is a reference to Isaac Newton who was the member of parliament for Cambridge between, 1689-70 and 1701-2. I believe he might have had something to do with forumulating the law of gravity.

Interesting to read the amount of off-topic royal hate. Collectively there is much logic in saying let's abolish the royals. Nobody deserves anything. They are just lucky. True, this equally applies to the Kardashians and many other celebrity stunts. There is a bit more class with the royals I would argue...

However, whatever emotional arguments people have here are a few facts:- The British Royal Family costs £33m a year of taxpayer money- it is estimated they bring in around £500m of tourism revenue for the country- many other countries have royals who do much less for their countries- the actually work quite hard to use their brand to help the UK.

Finally, life is not fair, best is to get over it and focus on your own contribution and happiness. Move on folks as they say!

Royalty is an abomination. It has nothing to do with fairness or cost. It is just so 1500. Yes, it might be cost efficient. Yes, it might be cute. But, it is not sound. In 2015 it looks more like a zoo than anything else. Look at those interesting endangered species in the cages. Look ... there is a duke! Is what I see over there really a princess? Yes! There are two of them!

You are the only one mentioning "fairness and cost" in connection with the Royals. They aren't. It's not the Royals of anno 1600 - their function these days is very different and as mentioned above, they do a lot of good for the country including bringing in a £500m tourism revenue.

@Henrikw, my post was a reply to @Weyskipper, he defended costs with more income than cost. He also did talk about fairness. So, if you criticise my post for being the only one talking about "cost and fairness", then you at least can read the post you refer to.

And as I wrote, I do not give a damn about fairness and cost. It is not important. There are bigger costs and unfairnesses in this world.

I only think having caged animals for the common amusement is not worthy 2015. I do not even like having animals in zoos, less then humans.

this isn't a common sense issue. it's an issue of supply and demand. the public demands photos. the paparazzi supply them.

demand can be mitigated by way of offering greater authorized access to the royals. or it might go the other way and royalty can attempt to educate or shame the public into suppressing their demand. more draconian laws might help reduce supply, with the undesirable consequence of making any (creatively acquired) photos even more desirable — and/or the monarch's subjects despising them. JMO.

For the record.....Princess Diana was chased by the paparazzi and was killed. So the Royal Family has the right to be concerned over their safety.Hey paparazzi...no more hiding in garbage cans. Hiding in sand dunes and using decoy children.Show some class!

Britain's MI5 and France's Surete did a wet job on the People's Princess -- then they tried to frame some celebrity photographers on scooters for their dirt deed. Those charges did not stick, BTW. And as usual, the real guilty ones got of Scot free.

There's a lot of adverse publicity about shooting animals....but, no-one would bat an eyelid if a few Paps got it. In fact they could be in season all year. None of this Glorious 12th nonsense. But the big question is: Over and under of Side by side?

Amazing how a little article like this brought out the bottom feeders of the universe. I am not in favor or against monarchy which in the grand scheme of things contributes an insignificant amount for or against the well being of GB.I am actually shocked at how much trolling a few people are allowed to do with impunity around here.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly royal family snap shots by paparazzi's The Good - The Duchess of York's Toe Scandel...Diana was banished for failure to toe the line set by royal decorum, Toeslut Fergie was banished because she over-toed that lineThe Bad - Lady Diana's fatal car crash....there's a demand for celebrity photographs, as is evidenced by the sheer amount of tabloid magazines available in any supermarket or newsagent, yet we vilify the men and women who supply our demands, So who's right?The Ugly - Texan John Bryan nibbling on Fergie's pungent toes

First photographers in the tunnel arrived inside the tunnel 18 seconds AFTER the car was wrecked. The way I read it, some naughty ones at MI5 and/or Surete did do something to the steering and/or the brakes.

I think you've forgotten about the mysterious FIAT Uno Francis. Plus I think that the KGB, GRU, Stasi, CIA and Mossad would all be equally annoyed that you don't think they had a part to play in this. Oops, nearly forgot the Martians, they're well in the frame for this as well. If Henri Paul had been drinking that could well have affected his decision making, being followed by the Paps could have meant that he made the wrong decision. No booze, no crash. No Paps, no crash

I hate how the paparazzi people do work, at least very many of them, destroy how real photographers work and might also lead to laws (actually happened already) about where and when you can bring your gear around!It's ok to take images of people at official events etc as long you don't bother them so to say and if you shoot closeups you should ask/tell them before or at least after the shot if possible.My 5 cents!

@Tan68...when they join the real world (like getting a job and not sponging off tax payer dollars, for example) they will fade into obscurity and no one will give a darn. Then they won't need to worry about Paparazzis. Fact is, these premadonnas would never give up their positions of pomp, luxury, excess and do-nothingness. That's why I don't care about their "problems." LOL!

Tax payers dollars ?? Bellend we dont use dollars and they are not payed for by the taxman in the UK the money comes out of the £200 million plus from Crown assets about 15% to the royals and the rest to the governmentthats a TAX rate TO the government of 65% of Crown Asstets

No it isnt .. the crown Estates are owned by the "Crown" IE: the Monarchy (not the Monarch or the Government) they are signed over to the government every year in exchange for the "Civil list"(or it's Modern equivalent) and have been ever since the government did a deal with one of the "King Georges" in exchange for paying off his gambling debts well over a Hundred and fifty years agoI think the Government got a good deal out of this

The Crown Estate is the Queen’s property company.No, this is misleading. Whilst The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown' and the monarch remains the legal owner, it is The Crown Estate which has the powers of management and control - i.e all the powers of an outright owner. This contrasts with the Queen's private estate, which includes Balmoral and Sandringham.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners).

You joking, right? The killing of the Princess Diana in Paris was a standard MI5 - Surete operation. Maybe the Queenie did not want to squeaky-clean blue blood mixed with some Arabian prince's questionable blood.

MI5 have no role overseas. MI5 do not arrest anyone. MI5 do not assassinate anyone. That's why they are called the Security Service, not the Secret Intelligence Service. Oh, and James Bond is a fictional character. Standard MI5 -Surete operation? You really ought to spend less time playing computer games. I'm surprised you haven't used the term "Black Ops" yet. There's still time yet.

Wow, and I had thought that having half of Africa tying to get into the U.K. illegally, and having tens of thousands of home-grown terrorists already on it soil would be greater concerns to the royal family.

But apparently, the country's main enemy are professional celebrity photographers with telephoto lenses on their cameras. Dang !!!

I was just wondering -- will this particular "royal family" ever going to die out? From the looks of it, they won't at any time soon. Bad news for the hapless poor folks of Greater Britain of the United Kingdom and all that: they have to feed them and house them and clothe them and do all those good things for them for maybe many more centuries to come. What the heck do the good people of the British Isles get out of keeping this group of leeches in their idle existence in infinitude?

Unless you expropriated the UK Royal Family without paying any compensation, they're bringing more income from taxes from their land than it costs the taxpayer to support their property. Note: Their property are landmarks the maintenance of which UK (or GB, as the case would be if it was no longer a kingdom) would have to pay one way or another (unless they were all razed).Oh, having elected heads of state also costs a lot of money and you have to shell out extra on every election or two.

Yes, the concept of hereditary title is appalling and unconscionable in the modern world. Yet citizenship is of form of hereditary title. Will you reject that birthright?

The only problem with your critique is the great US of A has an even more terrible bunch of parasites sitting on top of its middle class, and a vast underclass in poverty.

For all the intrinsic faults of the British system it works better than most of the options. The Dutch system is better, oops, also a monarchy. Adenmark, now that's grea... Beggar ditto. NZ? Oops Commonawealt with governed general representing the queen and a hereditary based Maori system. Cuba? Some great social systems and better distribution of wealth. Soon to be destroyed by American business interests so go and visit while you can...

We are indeed unfortunate to have these parasites. We could have been really lucky and had Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il (and Mini-Me), Lenin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Papa Doc Duvalier and Fidel Castro. Even elected politicians can be a problem, JFK with his alleged ties to the Mafia & Nixon during Watergate. Blair with his insatiable desire to be a world statesman. For me, the Constitutional Monarchy works quite well

Images of children should only be published with the consent of the care givers. Decent photographers and journalists need to pressure the governments of their countries to pass laws to make it that way. This protects the children and those people making a respectable living.

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.